Shah, J. - (1.) Before dealing with the issues involved in this appeal, we would first decide the main point in controversy, namely the ambit and scope of Courts jurisdiction in case where award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is challenged under S. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as the decision in this appeal would depend upon the said finding. In other words whether the Court would have jurisdiction under S. 34 of the Act to set aside an award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal which is patently illegal or in contravention of the provisions of the Act or any other substantive law governing the parties or is against the terms of the contract
(2.) Learned senior counsel Mr. Ashok Desai appearing for the appellant submitted that in case where there is clear violation of Ss. 28 to 31 of the Act or the terms of the contract between the parties, the said award can be and is required to be set aside by the Court while exercising jurisdiction under S. 34 of the Act.
(3.) Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-company submitted to the contrary and contended that the Courts jurisdiction under S. 34 is limited and the award could be set aside mainly on the ground that the same is in conflict with the Public Policy of India. According to his submission, the phrase Public Policy of India cannot be interpreted to mean that in case of violation of some provisions of law, the Court can set aside the award.;